User talk:Coren/Archives/2011/July
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Coren. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Proposal to extend the editing restrictions placed on User:Communicat
Hello, I have proposed that ArbCom extend the editing restrictions which it placed on Communicat (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Motion to extend editing restrictions on Communicat/Communikat and would appreciate your views on this. Thank you Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Uni Challenge
Sorry about the problem with Unversity Challenge. But Sean Blanchflower's site is more or less the only site where you can get this info. Apologies for this. Hogwild94 (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Another user has taken good ideas from your userpage and gone farther than normal
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Here's the discussion. BusterD (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
You are being implicated
You may wish to chime in at User talk:Kiwi Bomb#Why have I been blocked again?, where our "new" friend seems to think you're targeting him directly when you blocked that HK ISP proxy, the one timestamped 19:31, 6 July 2011 in your blocking log. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've told Kiwi Bomb on his talk page that since he is not blocked, only the IP is, and since he says he's not sending spam, that it should be perfectly OK for him to get a new IP address and continue editing. If there is anything inaccurate about that, please let him know. Wnt (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I was in the process of writing a comment there. The short of it: you are correct that he will not be blocked for switching IPs. — Coren (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Now we know why the SPI came up clean, at least. Tarc (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I was in the process of writing a comment there. The short of it: you are correct that he will not be blocked for switching IPs. — Coren (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Coren, regarding Splittist (talk · contribs) / WilliamWater (talk · contribs) / Lolnuts3000 (talk · contribs) and the current account Quigley (talk · contribs) and his participation in the Santorum/Cirt fiasco, I was wondering if this is the parent account of Kiwi Bomb (talk · contribs) and our IP address friend. I have little evidence to go on here, but I would appreciate it if you would look into any similarities. For background, see this ANI report from 14 August 2010. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, aside from the East Asian similarity, this comment makes me think that the user name "Quigley" is based on Carroll Quigley. There are some interesting IP addresses in that page history.[1] In any case, I was surprised to find the section "Influence on Bill Clinton" in the article. Given Kiwi Bomb's contributions, that's an interesting set of coincidences. Perhaps it means nothing. Viriditas (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Viriditas, why are you holding what is in effect a private sockpuppet investigation against me without notifying me? Why have you gone to Coren in particular, a checkuser who has reverted one of my edits in a content dispute, and who has made statements in recent RFARs that are opposite to mine, as your person to ask to "look into any similarities"?
- You are making what you admit are big stretches with little evidence in trying to connect me to Kiwi Bomb. You name accounts that have been resolved not to be sockpuppets of mine. You claim an "East Asian similarity" based solely on the conjecture that I, a WikiProject East Asia member, should have something in common with some new account that used an anonymizing proxy that geolocates to Hong Kong despite its making no East Asia-related edits. That's no "similarity".
- You also connect my username to a history professor noted for his writing on secret societies, despite the fact that there are 16810 people with the same surname in the United States, 5219 in the United Kingdom, and 1076 in Australia alone. I made one passing reference to how well documented an article on a secret society can be, based on a Today's Featured Article four months earlier, despite occultism never being a subject of interest in my edit history. The connection to Carroll Quigley is baseless, and that professor's teaching Bill Clinton is a coincidence.
- As you say, "perhaps it means nothing". Or perhaps it means you are taking the battleground mentality too far vis-à-vis the Cirt issue and other political issues, such that you're scrounging around my edit history with little cause in order to mock me and accuse me of high wiki-crimes. Because why do you need solid evidence behind accusations when you are already convinced that I am guilty of something, and that it's morally justified to "frame someone who's guilty anyway"? Deplorable behavior this is. Quigley (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- You claim an "East Asian similarity" based solely on the conjecture that I, a WikiProject East Asia member, should have something in common with some new account that used an anonymizing proxy that geolocates to Hong Kong despite its making no East Asia-related edits. That's no "similarity".
- I'm not at all certain why you said this, Quigley. The account did make an edit related to East Asia.[2] In fact, it was its only edit. I'm not trying to frame you. It's just that when I was looking into all of the accounts related to the Santorum controversy that could have something in common with the Kiwi Bomb, your name kept coming up. I admit, I have no hard evidence. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- When I said "account" I was referring to Kiwi Bomb, the only account whose contributions you linked to. I didn't know the IP of the proxy, and looking now it only appears in plain text once on Kiwi Bomb's talk page, which I wasn't following closely. As for your latest insinuation, my name can't "keep coming up" if the IP only made one edit, unless there's more information you're withholding, and I don't want to play 20 questions about this. I have reason to be distressed beyond the tensions of an ordinary secret sockpuppet accusation, because this particular user who you're trying to link to me has been blocked without much public deliberation in the name of some higher moral authority. Quigley (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand your reaction. If there is no connection between you and these accounts, shouldn't you be laughing at my evidence rather than getting upset? I also found your four paragraph, 328 word response to be quite strange. If the tables were turned, I would reply with 16 words: "I'm sorry, you've made a mistake. I am not connected to these accounts in any way." Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, I should not be laughing, because Wikipedia outcomes do not always match the truth of the matter. Even if the technical evidence does not match, which I am sure it does not because I am not connected to that account, I could still be blocked on mere suspicions, if you build a convincing enough case. I do not think your evidence is convincing, but that does not mean that someone to which I have not presented the proper context would think the same, which is why it's both courtesy and procedure to allow the accused person to refute the accusations. Part of the reason for the long response is my resentment about what seems to be your punishing me with a frivolous SPI for being perceived to be on the side of Cirt in his dispute. I had actually prepared a short reply like you said when your post was just a listing of usernames, but when you added to your accusations a supposed "East Asian similarity", Carroll Quigley, and Bill Clinton between us, I felt the need for a longer reply. Why don't you say "I'm sorry, I've made a mistake. You are not connected to these accounts in any way." instead of continuing this self-perpetuating innuendo? Quigley (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have little to offer in regards to the Santorum/Cirt situation. As it is, I am not really involved in that dispute. I commented on the Santorum talk page several times and on Cirt's RFC; that's the extent of my participation in terms of contributing to community consensus. As for your claim that the accounts I listed were not your sockpuppets, I see now that you view them as "alternate accounts" instead. Please review Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WilliamWater/Archive, where you said you had no plans to reveal that you owned the WilliamWater account but were forced to when your Quigley account was blocked. MuZemike's closing statement is very interesting. Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I was not "forced" to do anything by WP:CLEANSTART, and the alternate account is within the rules. I did make a note about it to help my successful unblock request against a highly questionable action by an administrator that has since been on permanent leave. MuZemike did not make the closing statement on that SPI; OhanaUnited did. MuZemike made an unacceptably ambiguous statement as to whether I broke the rules; I asked for a clarification on this, and OhanaUnited affirmed that I did not break the rules. You could not have avoided reading this salient conclusion, so your selective quoting confirms that you are less interested in finding the facts than in twisting the facts to support a preconceived idea (that I am guilty of some grave offense).
- I have little to offer in regards to the Santorum/Cirt situation. As it is, I am not really involved in that dispute. I commented on the Santorum talk page several times and on Cirt's RFC; that's the extent of my participation in terms of contributing to community consensus. As for your claim that the accounts I listed were not your sockpuppets, I see now that you view them as "alternate accounts" instead. Please review Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WilliamWater/Archive, where you said you had no plans to reveal that you owned the WilliamWater account but were forced to when your Quigley account was blocked. MuZemike's closing statement is very interesting. Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, I should not be laughing, because Wikipedia outcomes do not always match the truth of the matter. Even if the technical evidence does not match, which I am sure it does not because I am not connected to that account, I could still be blocked on mere suspicions, if you build a convincing enough case. I do not think your evidence is convincing, but that does not mean that someone to which I have not presented the proper context would think the same, which is why it's both courtesy and procedure to allow the accused person to refute the accusations. Part of the reason for the long response is my resentment about what seems to be your punishing me with a frivolous SPI for being perceived to be on the side of Cirt in his dispute. I had actually prepared a short reply like you said when your post was just a listing of usernames, but when you added to your accusations a supposed "East Asian similarity", Carroll Quigley, and Bill Clinton between us, I felt the need for a longer reply. Why don't you say "I'm sorry, I've made a mistake. You are not connected to these accounts in any way." instead of continuing this self-perpetuating innuendo? Quigley (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand your reaction. If there is no connection between you and these accounts, shouldn't you be laughing at my evidence rather than getting upset? I also found your four paragraph, 328 word response to be quite strange. If the tables were turned, I would reply with 16 words: "I'm sorry, you've made a mistake. I am not connected to these accounts in any way." Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- When I said "account" I was referring to Kiwi Bomb, the only account whose contributions you linked to. I didn't know the IP of the proxy, and looking now it only appears in plain text once on Kiwi Bomb's talk page, which I wasn't following closely. As for your latest insinuation, my name can't "keep coming up" if the IP only made one edit, unless there's more information you're withholding, and I don't want to play 20 questions about this. I have reason to be distressed beyond the tensions of an ordinary secret sockpuppet accusation, because this particular user who you're trying to link to me has been blocked without much public deliberation in the name of some higher moral authority. Quigley (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- As you say, "perhaps it means nothing". Or perhaps it means you are taking the battleground mentality too far vis-à-vis the Cirt issue and other political issues, such that you're scrounging around my edit history with little cause in order to mock me and accuse me of high wiki-crimes. Because why do you need solid evidence behind accusations when you are already convinced that I am guilty of something, and that it's morally justified to "frame someone who's guilty anyway"? Deplorable behavior this is. Quigley (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm quite tired of rehashing this history every time some wiki-enemy of mine probes my edit history to look for something incriminating. By your latest comments, it should be obvious that your interest is no longer in finding the "parent account" of Kiwi Bomb, but in finding something negative about me. Looking in contrast at how you simultaneously handled Off2riorob's rampage of cursing, personal attacks and edit-warring on ANI ("Wikipedia:Just drop it"), I can't take you seriously when you say that you "don't understand my reaction" of getting upset and not "laughing" at frivolous, cynical, and punitive sockpuppet accusations. Evidently I am being trolled here, so I'll leave this to the wiki-gods. Quigley (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't believe I've ever interacted with you prior to this situation (and if I have, I don't remember it), so I am hardly your enemy. Also, I am not really involved in the Santorum/Cirt controversy, so you can stop telling me that I am. Finally, MuZemike did make the closing CU statement; OU was just clerking. Since you deny what you wrote, I'll quote you: "According to one (and my original) interpretation of cleanstart, I would not need to disclose WW. Nevertheless, after YM's first hasty block of Quigley, in the interest of transparency and assuaging suspicions, I have disclosed WW for anybody who wants to "scrutinize", and that is fully what that policy asks." In other words, you had no plans to reveal that you owned the WilliamWater account but were forced to when your Quigley account was blocked. From the looks of it, no CU was ever done. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think there's something deeply flawed in asserting that Kiwi Bomb, a user blocked by a single IP block, is a sockpuppet of a user who is currently able to edit and who (perhaps) is associated with many different IPs. Whether he's right or wrong, at least Coren acted based on actual evidence with the IP, not this sort of innuendo. Wnt (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't believe I've ever interacted with you prior to this situation (and if I have, I don't remember it), so I am hardly your enemy. Also, I am not really involved in the Santorum/Cirt controversy, so you can stop telling me that I am. Finally, MuZemike did make the closing CU statement; OU was just clerking. Since you deny what you wrote, I'll quote you: "According to one (and my original) interpretation of cleanstart, I would not need to disclose WW. Nevertheless, after YM's first hasty block of Quigley, in the interest of transparency and assuaging suspicions, I have disclosed WW for anybody who wants to "scrutinize", and that is fully what that policy asks." In other words, you had no plans to reveal that you owned the WilliamWater account but were forced to when your Quigley account was blocked. From the looks of it, no CU was ever done. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm quite tired of rehashing this history every time some wiki-enemy of mine probes my edit history to look for something incriminating. By your latest comments, it should be obvious that your interest is no longer in finding the "parent account" of Kiwi Bomb, but in finding something negative about me. Looking in contrast at how you simultaneously handled Off2riorob's rampage of cursing, personal attacks and edit-warring on ANI ("Wikipedia:Just drop it"), I can't take you seriously when you say that you "don't understand my reaction" of getting upset and not "laughing" at frivolous, cynical, and punitive sockpuppet accusations. Evidently I am being trolled here, so I'll leave this to the wiki-gods. Quigley (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- There is in general no technical method to reliably link an account that is editing through an anonymizing proxy with another that isn't. Given the context around Kiwi Bomb, I don't think further investigation in that direction would be useful. — Coren (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Corensearchbot
Hi
On one of the copyvio pages it says that we can requests the bot to search an already existing non-new page, though I cannot find the instructions on how to do it - the banner says to look on the bot talk page which gets redir to here.
Is that checking function still available? Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is. Simply add a wikilink in the first section of User:CorenSearchBot/manual and the bot will look at it as soon as it's otherwise idle. Note, however, that this is a less reliable test since the probability that a page that has been around for a while has been copied increases greatly; this means that a match may well mean that the external site copied Wikipedia rather than the other way around. You need to be aware of this possibility when you evaluate whether a violation really did take place. — Coren (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- That may be a moot point now, I have been manually searching with Google and then using DuplicationDetector. There were quite a few User:Chaosdruid/GA1#Ditton.2C_Kent. Would the bot have been able to do that sort of search? Chaosdruid (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nowhere near as usefully as a manual investigation can, honestly. CSBot is a blunt tool that is mostly valuable because it is fast and systematic on new articles. — Coren (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- That may be a moot point now, I have been manually searching with Google and then using DuplicationDetector. There were quite a few User:Chaosdruid/GA1#Ditton.2C_Kent. Would the bot have been able to do that sort of search? Chaosdruid (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Nihat Anılmış, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.tsk.tr/eng/Anitkabir/baskahramanlar_10.html.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't use that website and I don't think I would use it because I have biographical dictionaries and books on Turkish generals. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the definition of "sane" per your comment at WP talk:ArbCom#The leaks have made Reddit.
I am with Salvadore Dali; "The sole difference between myself and a madman is the fact that I am not mad!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I see where you mean. The only place I remember saying something about being sane recently is when talking about the mail theft? — Coren (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Case in point, the difference between myself and someone who doesn't know which comment he is referring to is that I know what I am referring to... some of the time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Heh. I see what you mean, though. :-) — Coren (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Case in point, the difference between myself and someone who doesn't know which comment he is referring to is that I know what I am referring to... some of the time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a degree of pseudo-randomness in this ongoing problem with CorenSearchBot, but the problem has recurred. See this version of the page tagged by CorenSearchBot, apparently based on this comparison. --Big_iron (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
copyright notice on newly created Lady Adams Building
The owner of this content will be sending wikipedia a release within the next few days
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Adams_Building
Just dropping by, it appears CSBot is down.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Please exclude airports-worldwide.com, which mirrors Wikipedia airport articles
CorenSearchBot has flagged three articles which I created as being copied from http://www.airports-worldwide.com (see my talk page for the details). However, the articles in question were created from public domain FAA data, as shown via references contained each article. Upon viewing the pages at airports-worldwide.com, I found that they are all copies of existing Wikipedia articles; in fact that entire site seems to be airport articles copied from Wikipedia. Therefore, I would request that you update your bot to ignore any results coming from airports-worldwide.com. -- Zyxw (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Is CorenSearchBot down?
I added three pages to User:CorenSearchBot/manual, but nothing has happened yet. Could you please confirm that CorenSearchBot is running? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Am I still paranoid?
You were so amusing weren't you calling me paranoid? I can't wait for the WR revelations on that matter. Now here you and Shell are calling me paranoid again [3] tell me; had any fun with BarkingMoon lately on the list? You are bunch of jokers aren't you - I won't bother to add a question mark. Why you have not resigned is astounding, but knowing you, not surprising. For an Arb, your comments were a disgrace - how do the rest of that illustrious committee feel about them? The bastards stayed silent didn't they (again no question mark needed). Best regards Giacomo Returned 18:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
False detection on Hraschina (meteorite)
So... did everything CorenSearchBot was able to find in both pages were the words "hraschina is an iron meteorite"? LoL! Fix that roboot! Ps.Nevertheless, thank you for your effort. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 18:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
CorenSearchBot error
Hi. I received a false positive copyvio on (8846) 1990 RK7. Reverted and noted on talk page. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 02:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The link [4] you give for copyright has not all the data that I give on this article and this is not copyright. I write it with my own self. --—Assassin'S Creed (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Independent city
Looks like gnosis.cx might need a whitelist. Having a hard time detecting a Wikipedia mirror (blatant style of a Wikipedia talk page) is this bot. --161.7.96.69 (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)